legacycentral bbs

Bush 'admitting' to global warming doesnt make it true. It means he sees it as an important interest in the population and it's important for people to think he cares, politically speaking.

A very timely and relevant news story:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02 ... index.html

Once again, you are denying that a ton of scientists (that know this stuff far better than you) are correct.

Wow, that article is so well written. I'm convinced.

"Fossil fuels like methane and carbon dioxide..."

Id like to see some numbers on the amount of temperature increase caused by humans, as opposed to natural factors. If humans are affecting global climates, we're magnifying a cycle that was already in place, not creating a new one. Anyone could look at those charts BAC5.2 posted and realize were on a warming trend.

The point is not the article itself, it's what the article is reporting.

Splinter wrote:Bush 'admitting' to global warming doesnt make it true. It means he sees it as an important interest in the population and it's important for people to think he cares, politically speaking.

Bush admitting to global warming is not supposed to convince you. The consensus of the scientific community is. However, I mentioned Bush and the oil companies giving up as evidence that even parties with the most desperate interest in obscuring the issue have given up and and admitted it is a major, human-created problem.

Splinter wrote:Wow, that article is so well written. I'm convinced.

"Fossil fuels like methane and carbon dioxide..."

Id like to see some numbers on the amount of temperature increase caused by humans, as opposed to natural factors. If humans are affecting global climates, we're magnifying a cycle that was already in place, not creating a new one. Anyone could look at those charts BAC5.2 posted and realize were on a warming trend.

Well, the scientiists concluded:
"global warming was "very likely" caused by human activity, a phrase that translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that it is caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,249659,00.html

Are you going to come up with a different conclusion looking at the same numbers the whole scientific community looked at?

I just want the oceans to rise enough to make my house water front property and stop at least for a span of time that will convince people it's stabilized so I can sell for big money.

If we believed everything we were told by the people in charge of knowing things, we would all think that the internet was a series of tubes. Everything, EVERYTHING must be taken with a grain of salt.

To quote buddha, "Do not believe anything anyone says, even if I say it, unless first you pass it by your own mind"

The difference is that Ted Stevens doesn't know a damn thing about the internet. These scientists, on the other hand, actually know something about climate change.

I guess if you don't plan on having kids, there's nothing to worry about.

I hate kids, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't care. My concern is for man's monuments and continued evolution. A new dark age is depressing. And if you believe in reincarnation then you can care about the future for selfish reasons too. Unless you want to come back as an insect - i'm sure they'll love the climate change. Maybe being a big dragonfly would be cool.

The best part about scientific bickerings like this is that nobody can prove anything. All we can do is look at trends and speculate on what's causing it. How is anyone going to create an experiment or model that will encompass the unlimited number of variables that form our climate? We don't have evidence, we have obervations and there is a distinct difference.

Do humans really think that much of themselves in this day and age that we really think we have the power to impact world to make it inhabitable? At best we'll gum it up enough to get rid of a large percentage of our over population problem and the world will reset itself.

If you can't evolve with the changes, then die. Something every living creature has had to deal with and we are no different.


With that said, I'm still all for reductions in pollutants and clean energy like wind and geothermal farms.

skid542 wrote:The best part about scientific bickerings like this is that nobody can prove anything. All we can do is look at trends and speculate on what's causing it. How is anyone going to create an experiment or model that will encompass the unlimited number of variables that form our climate? We don't have evidence, we have obervations and there is a distinct difference.

You're exactly right. All these scientists have now is conjectures from what we have written down within the past 150 years or so. Then, they plug that into the computer and the computer comes up with a trend based on logic - logic that came from a human being.

Mind you, I'm one of these "kids" (I am 19 you know..) and I've been rather disconcerted with the Bush administration's blatant disregard to anything that has to do with getting off oil as a mainstream energy source. I'd rather we'd throw billions at figuring out hydrogen or cold fusion. I'd also like to see more nuclear power plants (mind you, in Europe, they produce no waste; ours here produce 8lb a year of nasty nasty stuff). But, unfortunately, none of those things will ever happen. Until I can convert my car to something other than gas, I'm going to run it and wince every time I see a huge tractor trailer puffing enough smoke to fill up a restaurant with every gear change.

skid542 wrote:Do humans really think that much of themselves in this day and age that we really think we have the power to impact world to make it inhabitable? At best we'll gum it up enough to get rid of a large percentage of our over population problem and the world will reset itself.

I'm glad someone shares my sentiment. We are in the world, not of it. We are part of nature, not controlling it. If the ability to destroy the world was possible with substances found in the world, then it would have probably have already been destroyed a long time ago.

With it being -17 degrees here right now, I'm not really a believer in global warming.

BAC5.2

The temp charts you posted are the real ones. The so-called "Hockey Stick" chart by Mann shows flat temps from about 1100 until about a hundred years ago, when a distinctive rise began.

The politically ambitious mob took this as proof of their beliefs that our behaviour is wrong and have rushed in trying to get more laws and regs passed.

The modern physicist, Murray Gellman, provided a description of a totalitarian system that can be applied to politics, whether the movement is Communist, Democrat, Green, or even too many of today,s Republicans.

"That which isn't compulsory is prohibited".

For most of the Twentieth Century the pitch was that coercive central planning was good for society. Then those countries suffering its full embrace began to reform its excesses around the world. The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 is the symbol. Control freaks had to change their message, and anthropogenic warming has been able to get more folks motivated than touts about socialism ever could.

Mann's model is contrived such that any set of random numbers would generate the same chart.

What is wrong with the chart other than the intent of the modeller to provide fuel to the terminally anxious?

First it ignores the warming to around 1300 and then it ignores the "Little Ice Age"--both are well, repeat well, documented.

This shows two possibilities: Mann did not know of these two extremes, in which case he is an ignorant climatologist.

If, by chance, he knew of them, then he is a liar.

I thought they were the real ones. The US Government pictures (the bottom two) look familiar from some of my college courses. I just thought the top one was a cool graphical representation of the trends in climate change.

subyluvr2212 wrote:

skid542 wrote:Do humans really think that much of themselves in this day and age that we really think we have the power to impact world to make it inhabitable? At best we'll gum it up enough to get rid of a large percentage of our over population problem and the world will reset itself.

I'm glad someone shares my sentiment. We are in the world, not of it. We are part of nature, not controlling it. If the ability to destroy the world was possible with substances found in the world, then it would have probably have already been destroyed a long time ago.

We're certainly not going to destroy the earth, but we do have the power to make ourselves extinct (which for all intents and purposes is the same thing from our point of view) or at very least kill off a sizable portion of the world population.

The worst of human behaviour occurred during the Twentieth Century when the politically motivated were out to create the "perfect man".

The irony is incredible. "The Black Book Of Communism" documents that highly motivated control freaks murdered some 100 million of their own citizens in their mania to create their idea of the perfect society.

Freedom has created the highest standard of living, lowest mortality rates and greatest longevity in all of history. Former totalitarian countries still have the worst environments and the lowest longevity. And today's mob with the message believe our living can be improved by more rules and regs.--spare me!

Mother Nature is not going to allow us to change the weather, let alone the climate.

The main threat to well-being has always been overly ambitious control freaks with a charismatic message.

So, your saying that because our society did better than restrictive societies, therefore rules are bad? Anyone who wants a law is a control freak? Your argument is black-and-white and way to general.

Even in a society fueled by freedom, we need lots of good rules. You're not allowed to set fire to your entire neighborhood, you're not allowed to dump 10,000 gallons of crude oil in your nearest reservoir, and soon you will have disincentives towards dumping too much carbon into your neighbor's atmosphere.

What's the difference between those issues? Nothing in principle. It's just a case-by-case basis. Is adding lots of carbon to the atmosphere bad? The scientists say YES. Could they be wrong? Certainly. But it's the best info we've got.

Neither your constitution nor mine says anything about the right to emit carbon, so we just evaluate the cost/benefit of our actions.

I was careful to use the term control freaks, with dangerous but at times compelling ambition.

in BC 20% of our pollution is from cars... BUT its funny cus we dont have any real industrial industrie... where is all the crap coming from...

Subtle wrote:The worst of human behaviour occurred during the Twentieth Century when the politically motivated were out to create the "perfect man".

The irony is incredible. "The Black Book Of Communism" documents that highly motivated control freaks murdered some 100 million of their own citizens in their mania to create their idea of the perfect society.

Freedom has created the highest standard of living, lowest mortality rates and greatest longevity in all of history. Former totalitarian countries still have the worst environments and the lowest longevity. And today's mob with the message believe our living can be improved by more rules and regs.--spare me!

Mother Nature is not going to allow us to change the weather, let alone the climate.

The main threat to well-being has always been overly ambitious control freaks with a charismatic message.

The worst human behavior happened in the 20th century? I don't think that's true at all. There's many instances of horrid acts committed throughout history. I don't think you can single out Eugenics as the worst, it's just one of the most notable in recent history. To be honest, I'm not a proponent of Eugenics but genetics will be playing a more and more prominent role in our ability to fight disease. This will increase longevity even more by skewing the average lifespan and practically eliminating geneticially passed diseases.

The main threat to human well-being has always been war, pestilence and famine. The Stalins and Hitlers of the world have been a threat to well being but they pale in comparison to the threat the black plague posed, for example.

carbix wrote:in BC 20% of our pollution is from cars... BUT its funny cus we dont have any real industrial industrie... where is all the crap coming from...

I don't know about BC, but here's for the world (man-made sources only):




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gree ... Sector.png

wikipedia wrote: Description
This figure shows the relative fraction of man-made greenhouse gases coming from each of eight categories of sources, as estimated by the Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research version 3.2, fast track 2000 project [1]. These values are intended to provide a snapshot of global annual greenhouse gas emissions in the year 2000.

The top panel shows the sum over all man-made greenhouse gases, weighted by their global warming potential over the next 100 years. This consists of 72% carbon dioxide, 18% methane, 9% nitrous oxide and 1% other gases. Lower panels show the comparable information for each of these three primary greenhouse gases, with the same coloring of sectors as used in the top chart. Segments with less than 1% fraction are not labeled.


Copyright
This figure was prepared by Robert A. Rohde from publicly avialable data and is part of the Global Warming Art project.

Scientific theories are nothing more than best guesses with the current information. They also seem to get better after time. The Earth was presumed flat until Columbus proved everyone wrong. Einstein came up with many theories and so he was considered a genius for it. Steven Hawking debunked one of his biggest theories. And now other scientists are proving even him to be wrong. Global temperatures in the 1800's and back are "best guesses" because nobody was hanging aroung with thermometers and writing down their results. Thermometers haven't been that accurate until around 15 years ago.

So what is this "consensus" I keep hearing about? There is no consensus on "global warming" among scientists. There are, in fact, great divisions among the greatest minds on this whole subject. Part of the reason why most seem to believe that there is a consensus is they don't hear the opposite side of the argument. When you put together groups of scientists hand-picked because of their views and say that they all agree, who are you really fooling? It appears to be many actually. All of our bright scientists aren't reaching the same conclusions about global warming. However, those who don't support the "global warming" theory that you referr to are systematically ridiculed, discredited, and de-funded. The powers to be don't seem too interested in hearing how their great theory has holes and many unanswered questions.

Scientists every day are researching this subject. There is a big difference in how they're doing it. Scientific evidence formed around a conclusion is much different than a conclusion formed from scientific evidence. You can do all the research to support a theory and still be wrong because your theory is flawed. Things are not being looked at that deserve to be studied. Credible questions about this theory are left unanswered. There are holes in this theory that intelligent people are exposing, only to be heard by no one.

Who are these scientists you ask? There are more than just a handfull of "nutjobs" that are in disagreement with this theory. You won't actually hear from many that do either, for they are in fear for their reputation. There are a few brave ones named in this article:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/glo ... 020507.htm

Now I challenge all of you to leave your bias in check and actually read this article. You might actually learn something new.

And how is it that "global warming" is the reason for everything nowadays? Hurricanes Rita and Katrina were said to be an effect of "global warming". The 2006 hurricane was predicted to be a nasty one because of "global warming". When the 2006 season ended without much of anything, "global warming" was the cause of that, too. "Global warming" is why it's hot and can also cause "global cooling" too. Yes, there's "evidence" to support all of this as well. Evidence formed around a conclusion. "Global warming" has a hard time explaining why the glaciers melted and what effect water vapor has on our environment though. How long before "global warming" is stretched to explain our obesity problem? Or is used to explain why we have more heartburn or E.D.?

Don't we deserve a little better explanation? I mean, come on now. If Bush had come out and said these things how many of you could seriously believe him? But instead of that, we have scientists that are running off the best guess at the moment with the current information coming up with this stuff. What if they don't have all the information or don't care to have any other information? Could they be wrong after all?

But then again, I am no scientist. I don't have all the research unfolded in front of me. I don't have years of studying global climatology under my belt. But as long as everyone who do have the research and experience are not coming to the same conclusion, I think we deserve an open and honest debate about it. Only then can we begin to honestly understand the whole picture. Because there is obviously no political agenda on either side of this argument (sarchasm).

P.S. - a special treat for those who want government to be the answer: A larger tax on gasoline and other petroleum products would cause the price of everything to rise. Do you like those bannanas that you can get for 99 cents a bunch? You'll really love the $4.99 a bunch ones, even though they're the same bannanas. $0.17 a gallon for tap water? Say hello to $1.67 a gallon. A tax would be the worst thing for us and as far as I'm concerned, government isn't the solution to our problems; government IS the problem.

Are you saying scientists working for governments or universities all around the world (e.g. UN, IPCC) are brainwashed and have some sort of agenda? But, the ones funded by oil companies (like him) are the ones we should trust?

You'll always find someone to disagree with every scientific theory, even the ones we are much more confident in than climate change. But, you go with the best information you have. Is this the best source you have?

Dr. Timothy Ball is Chairman and Chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP). [1]

Previously, Ball has been identified as a Canadian climate change sceptic who is a "scientific advisor" to the oil industry-backed organization, Friends of Science. [2] Ball is a member of the Board of Research Advisors of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a Canadian think tank. [3]

Ball is also a writer for Tech Central Station. [4]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Ball

Whatever one may feel about Tim Ball's denial of climate-change science, newpapers ought to report factual summaries of authors' credentials. You note he 'was first climatology PhD in Canada and worked as a professor at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years.'
Ball received a PhD in geography in the U.K. in 1982, on a topic in historical climatology. Canada already had PhDs in climatology and it is important to recognize them and their research
...
He spent 8 years as a geography professor. His work does not show any evidence of research regarding climate and atmosphere and the few papers he has published concern other matters.

http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.de ... 0Claim.pdf